Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText UFT One vs SmartBear TestComplete comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText UFT One
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
2nd
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
3rd
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
95
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), API Testing Tools (6th)
SmartBear TestComplete
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
9th
Ranking in Regression Testing Tools
5th
Ranking in Test Automation Tools
6th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Test Automation Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText UFT One is 10.0%, down from 10.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SmartBear TestComplete is 5.9%, down from 7.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Test Automation Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Don Ingerson - PeerSpot reviewer
With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results
With certainty, the best feature of UFT is its compatibility with so many products, tools and technologies. It is a challenge currently to find a single tool on the market besides UFT that will successfully work for so many projects and environments. For example, UFT supports GUI testing of Oracle, PeopleSoft, PowerBuilder, SAP (v7.20), Siebel, Stingray, Terminal Emulator, Putty, and Windows Objects (particularly Dialog Boxes). Furthermore, UFT has the built-in functionality to import Excel input files. For Web browsers, UFT 12.54 supports IE9, IE10, IE11, Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome (versions 31.0 to 54.9), Firefox (versions 27.0 to 49.0). Besides GUI testing, UFT supports database testing and API testing (Docker, WSDL, and SOAP). For the first time ever, HP started to expand the testing capabilities of UFT (QTP) beyond Windows beginning with UFT 12.00. A UFT user can now run tests on Web applications on a Safari browser that is running on a remote Mac computer.
Prakhar Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
Used for integration automation, user-based automation, and web automation
The solution's most valuable features are the drag-and-drop feature, keyword-driven approach, and reusability of the scripts. The solution has introduced a new feature that helps us identify objects we cannot normally identify. It gives you a fair idea of objects, resolving the object recognition issue. The solution can be used to perform different tests on different machines.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"Hidden among the kitchen sink of features is a new Data Generation tool called the Test Combinations Generator."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"The solution is easy to integrate with other platforms."
"The OpenText solution is the best of breed and the best solution on the market for large customers."
"The solution has good out-of-the-box protocols."
"The high-level security, high standard and compatible SAP are great."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to integrate with Azure DevOps for continuous integration and deployment."
"The ability to run a whole suite of tests automatically (which we did overnight)."
"The solution helps improve the stability of our product. It also decreases the work of our manual quality assurance engineers."
"It is a strong automation tool for desktop, browser, and API testing."
"Selenium integration."
"The solution has a very nice interface."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and it's quick to deploy."
"I like the cross browser compatibility. It saves a lot of time re-writing scripts to accommodate different browsers."
 

Cons

"We'd like it to have less scripting."
"UFT has a recording feature. They could make the recording feature window bigger for whatever activities that I am recording. It would improve the user experience if they could create a separate floating panel (or have it automatically show on the side) once the recording starts."
"We used to run it as a test suite. Micro Focus provides that in terms of a test management tool as ALM, but when we think of integrating with a distributed version control system, like Jenkins, there isn't much integration available. That means we need to make use of external solutions to make it work."
"Technical support could be improved."
"The scripting language could be improved. They're currently using Visual Basic, but I think that people need something more advanced, like Python or Java."
"One area for improvement is its occasional slowness."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"Sometimes UFT can take a while to open and sometimes will run slower than expected."
"The way objects are added and used when utilizing descriptive programming could be improved. It is a little unwieldy, compared to UFT."
"The solution needs more training manuals or some form of online forum for learning. It needs more documentation."
"The solution’s customer support should be improved."
"The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing."
"One notable drawback is the absence of native integration with Git."
"The code editor, though following eclipse-style, is still a work in progress and gives a very poorly formatted code once viewed via other editing tools."
"In scenarios where two of our engineers work on the same task, merging codes is a bit difficult."
"If that engine could better identify more XPaths automatically and make the process more flexible, that would be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's an expensive solution."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
"OpenText UFT One is a very expensive solution."
"The licensing and pricing model is confusing."
"The price is one aspect that could be improved."
"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."
"Overall, for us, the cost of the TestComplete platform and the three extra modules is around $8,000."
"The pricing is a little above average — it could be lower."
"It is approximately $6,000 a year."
"The pricing is pretty reasonable."
"The licensing costs are in the range of $1,000 to $3,000."
"The license price for a physical machine is cheap, and for virtual machine, it is very expensive."
"SmartBear TestComplete is an expensive tool."
"The price of SmartBear TestComplete could be less. The main challenge is when it comes to node-locked. They should use a subscription model, such as a monthly-based subscription or, a quarterly-based subscription. Their floating license is very expensive, and this high price should be reduced or provide, at a minimum, a subscription model."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Test Automation Tools solutions are best for your needs.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
20%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What do you like most about Micro Focus UFT One?
My company has not had an issue with OpenText UFT One since we have been using it for the past three to four years.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
UFT still requires some coding. If it could move closer to a no-code or low-code solution, it might dominate the market again. Additionally, customer support could be improved as they take days to ...
What do you like most about SmartBear TestComplete?
TestComplete has strong reporting capabilities. The reports they generate are really good.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SmartBear TestComplete?
I don't know much about the pricing, however, I think it's cheaper.
What needs improvement with SmartBear TestComplete?
The recording function, when using Python, could be improved, as it does not work well in recording testing.
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Cisco, J.P. Morgan, Boeing, McAfee, EMC, Intuit, and Thomson Reuters.
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText UFT One vs. SmartBear TestComplete and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.